Originally Posted by Uppercut
You're looking at this from a strange angle.. why are you so concerned with whether Dicko's initial prediction was wrong or not? We're just trying to judge whether the selectors' decision was good or not, and the point is that if you want to find out, it's best to look at more than just the results of it.
I don't give a **** about Dicko's initial prediction; I just find it wrong headed he continues to insist selectors are "wrong" when the evidence of the play suggests the contrary. We, the general public, aren't privy to selectorial meetings so we're only summising what the reasons might've been anyway.
To use the Oval test last year again as an example one could quite easily propose an argument along the lines of "Bopara was selected for the first four tests, if they thought he was the man for the job then, why change now?"
but that's rendered rather redundant when the man who replaced him scores a debut 100. If you disregard the result (which is, ultimately the objective of sport) it becomes impossible to ever make a "right" or "wrong" call.
The problem is, when one looks at anything other than the bottom line, one makes a subjective judgement as to whether a selection was the "correct" one or not. Ultimately any selection is just an opinion; the proof of the pudding is in the eating.